The Oklahoma Supreme Court ruling that struck down an 11-year old state law that capped damages on injury lawsuits got a bad response from the State Chamber of Commerce. “Judicial activism,” said one official.
On the other hand, workers comp attorneys applauded the decision. Bob Burke, the Oklahoma City lawyer who helped write the state’s workers compensation laws years ago called it a “wonderful decision.”
He said it puts power back in the hands of citizens who serve on juries the right to determine how much an injured person is entitled to collect because of the negligence of another person.
“Putting an arbitrary cap of $350,000 on pain and suffering damages when a person loses an arm or leg was woefully unfair and an insult to people who sit on juries,” said Burke.
The ruling came in an appeal filed by an oilfield worker who lost an arm and had won a nearly $7 million judgment from an Oklahoma County District court jury. But the 2011 law putting a cap on injury awards in such lawsuits capped the judgment at $700,000 for the worker and his wife.
Attorney Bryce Johnson called it a “great victory for injured people across Oklahoma.”
He said it provides victims the opportunity to get the compensation they deserve for their pain and suffering.
“The Supreme Court was clear the Legislature cannot arbitrarily limit compensation for victims.”
Fred Morgan, the former legislator who is President and CEO of the State Chamber of Oklahoma had a different take on the ruling, saying the ruling was judicial activism.
“Today’s decision by the Oklahoma Supreme Court stating that the cap on non-economic damages for bodily injuries is a special law and therefore unconstitutional flies in the face of legal precedent,” he said in a statement.
“By undoing this law, the judicial branch of our government has sent a message to job-creators: ‘Don’t come to Oklahoma. You’ll risk a lawsuit with uncapped damages!’”
Senate President Pro Tem Greg Treat agreed with Morgan, saying he wasn’t surprised at the ruling.
” The Supreme Court has previously demonstrated its dislike of lawsuit reform, and when the court doesn’t like a law they fall back to their old standby of using ‘special law’ or ‘single-subject rule’ to throw out constitutionally sound bills. If the Supreme Court can’t apply these standards in a consistent basis, then perhaps the Legislature should look at remedies that would bring uniformity to the application of these important provisions of the state constitution,” said Treat, R-Oklahoma City.
The court continues to go outside its constitutional lane of interpreting the law, said Senator Julie Daniels, the chair of the Senate Judiciary Committee.
“The courts are intended to be independent arbiters of the constitutionality of legislation, but you cannot fault Oklahomans for questioning that independence when the court haphazardly uses ‘special law’ and ‘single-subject rule’ to strike down laws the court does not like. This is an issue that merits further study by members of the Legislature,” said Daniels, R-Bartlesville.
